Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

6.
The approach• Resulting from willingness to do research differently, project implementation is done through two NGO’s: – BAIF in India and – CARE in Mozambique.• ILRI has 2 post-doc researchers based at the NGO’s offices, ensuring a close day-to-day collaboration and action research• The project applies an Innovation System approach in the context of value chains• Outcome Mapping is used as monitoring and evaluation tool. 6

8.
What went well?• Technical and institutional constraints have been identified through engagement with stakeholders, baselines, and joint diagnosis• Similar challenges in both countries – Production (breeding, animal health, and feed) – Lack of coordination among producers and between VC actors 8

9.
What went well?• IPs established and meet regularly (2-3 monthly) for problem identification, action planning and monitoring• IP are functioning and facilitated by resp. field guides (Udaipur) and a secretariat (Inhassoro) Picture from India? 9

10.
What went well?• Producers (from Goat PGs) well represented• Diagnosed technical and capacity needs and opportunities and final jointly developed strategy for addressing them• Feedback on research results and actions 10

11.
What went less well?• Takes long time for IP member to understand what IP is about; may still not be completely clear• Consistent participation of goat keepers problem• Involvement of other VC actors so far limited (esp. buyers; season dimension)• Challenge to involve women in IP 11

12.
What went less well?• Information exchange between Goat PGs and IPs• Continuity/sustainability of IPs (esp. in Inhassoro)• Weak IP facilitation skill among local actors• Goat keeping secondary activity (low input-cost system); commercial goat keeping requires change in mind-set among producers and supportive institutions and a long term process Picture from India? 12

13.
Organization1. NGOs (BAIF and CARE) acted initially as ‘knowledge broker’ and facilitators; later taken over by ‘field guides’ in India and elected IP secretariat (VC actors) in Mozambique (still needs strong support from NGOs)2. Agenda setting: Mozambique - CARE/ILRI took the lead in agenda-setting in the first 5 meetings (with accordance from IP secretariat); India – initially BAIF/ILRI setting agenda; now standardized format depending on action plans3. Held 2-3 monthly; first few meetings focused on identification of constraints and development of action plans; later report back on activities and follow up 13

16.
Lessons learned1. Coordination among goat producers and other value chain actors was limited. In this context, an IP provides a mechanism for communication and information exchange in order to enhance collective action2. Broad scoping/diagnosis, VCA, and Gender Analysis, should be conducted during inception phase of project 16

17.
Lessons learned3. Focus in both countries is evolving over time, starting with production issues and graduating towards commercialization4. Relevant issues and hence participation of actors season dependent in case of goat meat VC. 17

18.
Lessons learned5. Information exchange within and especially beyond the platform is crucial to ensure that the IP is based on relevant issues and are taken forward6. IPs tend to be time and (human) resource intensive processes; continuity/sustainability depends on capacity to resolve VC constraints; needs to be clear to different VC actors what they will get out of participation7. IP processes should be used in goat VC projects of at least 3 years. However, they should not be seen as permanent structures. IPs could be used as starting point for other forms of collective action (e.g. hubs). 18

19.
Questions• Representation issues; who is included/excluded; and what are the power dynamics? (need for monitoring)• Research/documentation is intensive; to what extent should this be done by researchers and/or by local actors themselves, and to what extent part of process• R4D; to what extent are research and development integrated, and how is that reflected in the IP• What can we learn from R4D Partnerships 19